Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CASTEEL DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3700531 · 1 · LAKE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:06 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (2deb1d7) — every figure regenerates from this named code version and data image.
Where it sits
Location as DWR records it. Faint dots are the neighbouring water; click any to open it.
Which of its rights are out of priority?
Not computable for this structure: this structure is not on the modelled flow network, so no reference gage can honestly stand in for it.
Where it sits in line
Priority 1886-06-01 — 346th most senior of the 2162 structures with decreed rights in this water districtDWR's administrative subdivision of a river basin; the unit calls are usually stated in..
Under prior appropriationColorado's rule for sharing water: first in time, first in right. Age decides, not proximity or need., everything ahead of it in this line is satisfied in full before it receives any water. Immediately ahead: NEILSON PUMP LINE DITCH (1926-10-01). Immediately behind: SCHUMM NO 1 DITCH (1886-11-01).
Decreed rights (2)
| Admin noDWR's numeric encoding of a water right's seniority. Smaller is more senior; the integer part counts days from 1849-12-31 to the date that ranks the right. | AppropriatedWhen water was first put to beneficial use. It sets seniority unless a prior adjudication date is later. | AdjudicatedWhen the water court confirmed the right. A use decreed in 1975 was not a decreed use in 1955, however old the appropriation is. | AbsoluteA right actually put to use, as opposed to conditional -- a placeholder for a use not yet made. | ConditionalA right reserving a place in line for a use not yet made; it must be diligently pursued or it lapses. | Units | UsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on. | Case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30894.13301 | 1886-06-01 | 1936-10-03 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 370 |
| 30894.30467 | 1933-06-01 | 1936-10-03 | 2.14 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 480 |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
06CW0277, CA0963.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
06CW0277 | 1 | 2006-12-31 | S |
CA0963 | 5 | 1936-10-03 | S |
DWR's own records for this structure: net amounts · transactions & adjudication history · scanned decrees (search a case number there for the imaged document). On this site: the district's full legal picture →
Recorded use (last 15 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 204 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 207 AF — 102% of that, and 9th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
| Year | Diverted (AFA volume: one acre covered a foot deep, about 326,000 gallons -- roughly a suburban household's outdoor use for a year.) | Compared with its own record | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 | 77 | 4th lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 115 | 0.5 |
| 2004 | 54 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 26% of median | 71 | 0.5 |
| 2005 | 97 | 5th lowest of 15 · 48% of median | 118 | 0.5 |
| 2009 | 120 | 6th lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 164 | 0.4 |
| 2011 | 196 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 133 | 0.8 |
| 2012 | 204 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 138 | 0.8 |
| 2013 | 250 | 11th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 169 | 0.8 |
| 2014 | 349 | 15th lowest of 15 · 171% of median | 170 | 1.8 |
| 2015 | 266 | 13th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 142 | 1.2 |
| 2016 | 254 | 12th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 172 | 0.8 |
| 2017 | 271 | 14th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 183 | 0.8 |
| 2019 | 240 | 10th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 162 | 0.8 |
| 2022 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 61 | 0.0 |
| 2023 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 365 | 0.0 |
| 2024 | 207 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 304 | 0.8 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 15 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
How good is our record of it?
Grade B (8/10 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not.
The rubric, component by component
| Check | State | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| identity | complete | name, type, and water source all on file |
| decreed rights | on file | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 6638 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 42% of the irrigation seasons in 1951-2024 carry measured days |
| published-record stability | stable | no upstream revisions recorded against this structure |
Advisory reading aid on public data — not an administrative or legal conclusion, not a title opinion, and not a substitute for DWR administration or an engineer's analysis. Methodology review status is disclosed at hydrohistorian's basin pages.